Yes, send them to treatment even before they do anything wrong. This is a line from basically every future dystopian nightmare ever.

It depends. If it’s somewhat deterministic like disease, and there are no adverse effects or if there are they are overridden by the benefits then I don’t see why not investigate that avenue.

Obviously if it remains guesswork then the reason to pursue this option doesn’t exist.

> and there are no adverse effects

Who gets to define what counts as an "adverse effect"?

> if there are they are overridden by the benefits

Benefit to who? You? Society in general (by what definition of "society")? The doctor that defiantly isn't getting free lunches and other "gifts" from the company selling the treatment? The person receiving the treatment?

How are you judging the magnitude of the beneficial and harmful effects? Who gets to define what type of arguments are allowed to be considered when making that judgment?

> there are no adverse effects

Both real life and those dystopian movies have taught me that this is _never_ the case. There's literally a 0% chance of no adverse side effects.

To be fear, that needs to happen in movies. Otherwise it would be a boring movie if everything goes right.